Random NON FOOTY thoughts not worthy of a thread: Edition II

[sruss]

It's everywhere , I'm sure if you were interested you wouldn't have asked

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

most of the time when you're engaging in a debate or discussion, you provide sources to back up your statements, as kangaspurs did, but to each their own i guess

 

[Moti]

It's everywhere , I'm sure if you were interested you wouldn't have asked

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Studies are fraught with danger, I wouldn't believe them either way.

There are crappy parents and good parents and I don't think their sexuality will determine their ability to care foe the child and provide a safe environment for them.

I do believe a loving mum and dad does give the best exposure to the intricacies of male and female personality but these days Youtube seems to be the main parent

 

[Royal Flush]

I'm not. Why should the day NSW was settled for the purposes of being a brutal political prison be considered our national day? Invasion day is a much more accurate description. But even without that baggage its got **** all to do with the rest of the country. When I was at school in Tassie and Victoria no one cared about it because we had school holidays anyway and it had nothing to do with Australia and everything to do with the UK.

January 26th is Republic Day in India as well. They picked that day because it was the day they became a sovereign nation (their constitution came into effect and their own law became sovereign in their country) instead of being subject to the Poms not because it was the day they became a British colony/subject to them. (They have an independence day as well that celebrates the day the Poms left).

In Victoria it wasn't even adopted until less than 100 years ago. Governments across the country only agreed to "Australia Day" after WW2 and it only became a national public holiday in 1994. There's nothing that special about it.

Its stupid imo to celebrate a day our nation essentially became someone else's prison and shows just how little Australians understand about their own country and how it came to be.

I don't celebrate the day, I'd prefer to work.
The entire world was colonised by invasions .
Where do you stop and where do you start?
I'd prefer my children to not bare any guilt what so ever, their families and ancestors came many years after invasion day and a generation after the stolen generations of Indigenous people.


On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mav]

First off, none of those things in the first paragraph apply to me so not sure why you raised them.

I do have a right to have an opinion and a vote. It then becomes a matter of how everyone else votes. My faith is part of my psychological framework as much as any other input into the psyche from University to Youtube Cat Videos.

The re-definition is not really contested. The intent of the original legislation was regarding heterosexual marriage and the updates were made to reflect this in words accustomed to the changing landscape so we could have this exact discussion. If the original legislators knew the possibility of the definition being altered to include same sex couples, they would have defined it a man and a woman. The bible does have a definition and I quite comfortably would say that it is the definition of the word marriage for millenia around the world with few exceptions. Again, I have no problem asking for it to be changed, but you need to at least see that there was an original meaning. It is like saying gay has always meant homosexual people. Even though the original definition of lighthearted and carefree is almost extinct.

Regarding extended definition, it wouldn't surprise me if the age is contested in the next decade and lowered to 16. Just as polygamy is only a committed group away from changing the definition again.

Moti, can you please point out where the bible defines marriage? I've often been told this but I've been unable to find it.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

First off, none of those things in the first paragraph apply to me so not sure why you raised them.

I read your original post to suggest that there was one passage in the bible that deals with marriage and that is why you hold your view, and I suspect others did too.

In which case, the other things mentioned in the post that you quote are all relevant, as they are all from the bible. So, the suggestion is that it would not be right to conveniently choose one part that you relate to, but ignore plenty of others. It's covered very well in this (click See Examples): http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

If not from the bible, what is the "passage" that you are referring to?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

As a side note, coming from a Science background.

The problem with a lot of studies (outside of those that aren't open to opinion such as studies on animals) is that they're often twisted to suit the narrative of the people doing the study.

You'll find more studies into how children raised in a traditional family setting are better off because it's more important for that side of the argument to prove their point, and its not necessarily a good idea to take these results at face value, because they invest money in these studies wanting a particular outcome. This goes against a basic rule of scientific investigation, don't go in with preconceived notions or you'll dismiss critical evidence that states otherwise.

A good example of this is studies into sports drinks like Gatorade/Powerade. Guess who funds 99% of these studies? You guessed it, Powerade and Gatorade. And the results of these studies is nearly always positive.

Another is studies regarding carbohydrates in diets and their positive or negative effects. By and large funded by Kellogs and other cereal/grain companies (i.e carbohydrate sellers). Nearly always positive for carbohydrate consumption, many of these studies have now been debunked as utter BS now that other companies have looked into them.

 

[kangaspurs]

First off, none of those things in the first paragraph apply to me so not sure why you raised them.

I do have a right to have an opinion and a vote. It then becomes a matter of how everyone else votes. My faith is part of my psychological framework as much as any other input into the psyche from University to Youtube Cat Videos.

The re-definition is not really contested. The intent of the original legislation was regarding heterosexual marriage and the updates were made to reflect this in words accustomed to the changing landscape so we could have this exact discussion. If the original legislators knew the possibility of the definition being altered to include same sex couples, they would have defined it a man and a woman. The bible does have a definition and I quite comfortably would say that it is the definition of the word marriage for millenia around the world with few exceptions. Again, I have no problem asking for it to be changed, but you need to at least see that there was an original meaning. It is like saying gay has always meant homosexual people. Even though the original definition of lighthearted and carefree is almost extinct.

Regarding extended definition, it wouldn't surprise me if the age is contested in the next decade and lowered to 16. Just as polygamy is only a committed group away from changing the definition again.

You reference your religion as a reason why you will oppose marriage equality. All of those I listed are prohibited by the bible. Why are you selective with your adherence to the passages in the book? It comes across as disingenuous. How can you ignore those things yet hold onto something else that's going to deny people equality?

As I said in my op, laws and institutions have always changed to reflect shifts in things like technology, research and societal values expectations. In a secular Australia the definition of marriage in the bible has no place in denying people equality in the law on the basis of their sexual preference. Marriage in Australia is a legal union, not a religious one.

The rest of what you argue is supposition. This or that might happen, the original legislators really meant this. It's not really relevant to the question asked on the ballot paper.

 

[Moti]

Moti, can you please point out where the bible defines marriage? I've often been told this but I've been unable to find it.

The term definition is probably not the right word as that implies that an edict was written as a rule. The Bible only has a couple of books where this occurs and it is specific to the Jews and their time as a nation. Genesis 2:24 is the first verse that talks about a "wife" and the man and woman being united. Where marriage is mentioned it is always regarding a man and a woman. If the culture of the Jews was to allow same sex marriage, then you could argue that this should have been spelled out better. But while they engaged in various acts, marriage was never allowed between same sexes. Also marriage was linked to procreation so again it is clear that is a man and a woman.

 

[ferball]

I responded to this below but I see all they did was clearly portraying the original intent of the legislation so that if a change was to occur it had to be by a decision of parliament or the people. It was just a bit of crappy initial writing.

Anyone who thinks even an average person in the 90's defined marriage as anything other than between a man and woman would be kidding themselves.

What Howard did was frame the argument correctly. Now we have a chance to change it or not.

He framed it correctly in your opinion but thats ok, you are entitled to it. I think he did it in response to the probability that unless he framed it that way the changing nature of our society would have re-framed it in a way people who tried to fund his party on the sly (and probably had in previous elections) and others of a conservative nature wouldn't have liked. Not because it was essentially correct but because it was "politically correct" to a demographic that supported him.

I think you'll find that while people in the 90s defined marriage in a traditional way they were becoming more open to the possibility of same sex marriage. And that marriage itself was becoming less valued as an institution. Especially younger people who are now middle aged. By 2004 that possibility was much more realistic and had growing support.

 

[Moti]

I read your original post to suggest that there was one passage in the bible that deals with marriage and that is why you hold your view, and I suspect others did too.

In which case, the other things mentioned in the post that you quote are all relevant, as they are all from the bible. So, the suggestion is that it would not be right to conveniently choose one part that you relate to, but ignore plenty of others. It's covered very well in this (click See Examples): http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

If not from the bible, what is the "passage" that you are referring to?

Unless you want a sermon (and I am meant to be working), I will answer real quick. Before the apple, relationship with God was good. After apple, relationship was broken and everything after was a compromised relationship that was condemned, because the wage for sin is death. Jesus died, took the responsibility for sins upon him so we no longer needed to abide by "The Law" (which is a specific set not laws in general), because they are written on the heart, not in a book.

That is why the laws that were for only Israel, between the Exodus and conquering of Babylon essentially, do not apply to Christians. However, Jesus says that we are to know them and surpass them. That is why Leviticus in particular is not essential to faith living but is an understanding of the time and how much we owe the Cross.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I wouldn't really be basing the definition of Marriage on something the Howard government defined, what with Howard's history and beliefs regarding SSM and the recent revelations by a former campaign manager of his that Howard is dishonestly using a tactic he designed to drum up support for the No side.

 

[Moti]

You reference your religion as a reason why you will oppose marriage equality. All of those I listed are prohibited by the bible. Why are you selective with your adherence to the passages in the book? It comes across as disingenuous. How can you ignore those things yet hold onto something else that's going to deny people equality?

As I said in my op, laws and institutions have always changed to reflect shifts in things like technology, research and societal values expectations. In a secular Australia the definition of marriage in the bible has no place in denying people equality in the law on the basis of their sexual preference. Marriage in Australia is a legal union, not a religious one.

The rest of what you argue is supposition. This or that might happen, the original legislators really meant this. It's not really relevant to the question asked on the ballot paper.

I answered the first paragraph in another post.

Again, i use the bible as my source of understanding, others use other things. We are in a secular environment so that is why we are voting.

I wasn't referring to the ballot, I referred to the reference to Howards changes. He framed marriage in line with the real world definition, now we get to decide if it remains or changes. Not sure where you are going with this.

 

[Moti]

He framed it correctly in your opinion but thats ok, you are entitled to it. I think he did it in response to the probability that unless he framed it that way the changing nature of our society would have re-framed it in a way people who tried to fund his party on the sly (and probably had in previous elections) and others of a conservative nature wouldn't have liked. Not because it was essentially correct but because it was "politically correct" to a demographic that supported him.

I think you'll find that while people in the 90s defined marriage in a traditional way they were becoming more open to the possibility of same sex marriage. And that marriage itself was becoming less valued as an institution. Especially younger people who are now middle aged. By 2004 that possibility was much more realistic and had growing support.

I agree. Howard perhaps didn't change it for the right reason but it was the right decision. It defined it as it was always known as and that laid the foundation for SSM advocates to create an argument to change that in line with changing attitudes. I just don't agree people thinking that is why gay people weren't married before and it why they can't now. It clarified, didn't define the social construct. We can change that now.

 

[Mav]

The term definition is probably not the right word as that implies that an edict was written as a rule. The Bible only has a couple of books where this occurs and it is specific to the Jews and their time as a nation. Genesis 2:24 is the first verse that talks about a "wife" and the man and woman being united. Where marriage is mentioned it is always regarding a man and a woman. If the culture of the Jews was to allow same sex marriage, then you could argue that this should have been spelled out better. But while they engaged in various acts, marriage was never allowed between same sexes. Also marriage was linked to procreation so again it is clear that is a man and a woman.

So you're basing your definition of Marriage on writings that have talking serpents and 900 hundred year old men? mmmm ok. Add to this that on several occasions Genesis mentions multiply wives for one man, it seems rather dubious that you would base today's definition of marriage on the Jewish culture of over 2000 years ago. If you truly believe what is written in the old testament then you would be ok with multiple wives, and you would adhere to the other proclamations as mentioned by others above. If not, you are being hypocritical and using certain interpretations of literature to justify your own prejudice.

 

[kangaspurs]

I answered the first paragraph in another post.

Again, i use the bible as my source of understanding, others use other things. We are in a secular environment so that is why we are voting.

I wasn't referring to the ballot, I referred to the reference to Howards changes. He framed marriage in line with the real world definition, now we get to decide if it remains or changes. Not sure where you are going with this.

No he didn't. He changed it to the definiton used by the Christian world. The Oxford Dictionary, for example, defines marriage as 'The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.' Mirriam Webster defines it as 'the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.' Why are those 'real world definition' any less valid than the one used in the bible? In fact, in a secular society and one that recognises the separation of church and state we should completely avoid the use of the Christian definition of anything in our law making.

You made the 'slippery slope' argument in one of your other posts and I was saying that argument is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the question asked on the ballot.

 

[ferball]

I don't celebrate the day, I'd prefer to work.
The entire world was colonised by invasions .
Where do you stop and where do you start?
I'd prefer my children to not bare any guilt what so ever, their families and ancestors came many years after invasion day and a generation after the stolen generations of Indigenous people.


On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Unless your family came in the 90s they came during the genocide of aboriginal people. There are aboriginal people around today who would argue that genocide is still ongoing and I'm not talking about radicals like the Nigel.

The wealth this country has now is built off the dispossession and genocide of aboriginal people (and the slavery/free labour of convicts, indentured workers and blackfellas). We benefit from it today because we benefit from the wealth built over previous generations. If you don't acknowledge those things then you are simply failing to acknowledge reality.

There are members of the stolen generation who are my age, and the same age as plenty of other posters here - less than 50 years old. Some are (or were, thanks to suicide) my friends. I find it hard to believe your family arrived a generation after what happened to them, unless they've only just got here.

There are people my age whose families were hunted thru parts of Queensland while Vietnamese boat people were arriving here. I know some of them.

Your kids don't deserve to feel guilty for that but they should acknowledge it happened, still happens and they should be aware of the benefit they have as a result of it.

I look like an aboriginal and during the 90s had someone in a pub in melbourne describe still shooting blackfellas with high calibre jacketed rounds so the evidence of who shot them was almost impossible to gather. They expressed their desire to show me how this worked in person. Just came up to me in a pub and started going on about it. I used to pick fruit in the Riverina in the late 80s and early 90s and would always visit local blackfellas. They'd always say which towns to avoid depending on which cops had been transferred where. I'm talking about the cops with a reputation for organising suicides or just driving people 20 kms out of town and killing them. If you're older than Ben Brown this happened in your lifetime.

 

[Moti]

So you're basing your definition of Marriage on writings that have talking serpents and 900 hundred year old men? mmmm ok. Add to this that on several occasions Genesis mentions multiply wives for one man, it seems rather dubious that you would base today's definition of marriage on the Jewish culture of over 2000 years ago. If you truly believe what is written in the old testament then you would be ok with multiple wives, and you would adhere to the other proclamations as mentioned by others above. If not, you are being hypocritical and using certain interpretations of literature to justify your own prejudice.

Haven't really thought about multiple wives, couldn't think of anything worse

 

[Firestarter]

I can't even get a girlfriend but that surprises no one. I'm so peachy innI?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Unless you want a sermon (and I am meant to be working), I will answer real quick. Before the apple, relationship with God was good. After apple, relationship was broken and everything after was a compromised relationship that was condemned, because the wage for sin is death. Jesus died, took the responsibility for sins upon him so we no longer needed to abide by "The Law" (which is a specific set not laws in general), because they are written on the heart, not in a book.

That is why the laws that were for only Israel, between the Exodus and conquering of Babylon essentially, do not apply to Christians. However, Jesus says that we are to know them and surpass them. That is why Leviticus in particular is not essential to faith living but is an understanding of the time and how much we owe the Cross.

And we know how much Jesus was invested in sexuality because he raised it - never. Unlike being rich, which he felt very strongly about, but the most pious have no trouble rationalising to suit themselves.

Faith is not the enemy here. But Pharisees, wherever you look, then and now.

 

[Mav]

Haven't really thought about multiple wives, couldn't think of anything worse

trying thinking about being denied the right to marry the one you love...all because of someone else's religious views. If you think about it you would your realise how much worse that is, and the hurt and pain it causes.

 

[Moti]

No he didn't. He changed it to the definiton used by the Christian world. The Oxford Dictionary, for example, defines marriage as 'The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.' Mirriam Webster defines it as 'the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.' Why are those 'real world definition' any less valid than the one used in the bible? In fact, in a secular society and one that recognises the separation of church and state we should completely avoid the use of the Christian definition of anything in our law making.

You made the 'slippery slope' argument in one of your other posts and I was saying that argument is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the question asked on the ballot.

And we know how much Jesus was invested in sexuality because he raised it - never. Unlike being rich, which he felt very strongly about, but the most pious have no trouble rationalising to suit themselves.

Faith is not the enemy here. But Pharisees, wherever you look, then and now.

Context, context, context. Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things because they were already established in Jewish culture. However, when they were wrong (Any cause Divorce) he corrected them. That is why Paul handled more controversial topics, his audience was outside the Jewish world.

 

[ferball]

I never get why Paul is revered so much.

He obviously thought he could do more damage to Jesus' message by infiltrating Christianity and controlling the message than just killing off its believers/practitioners.

 

[Moti]

trying thinking about being denied the right to marry the one you love...all because of someone else's religious views. If you think about it you would your realise how much worse that is, and the hurt and pain it causes.

It wouldn't be nice at all if that is what your heart is set on. But just because people get upset though , it is not the only argument to make a decision, whatever it is.

Gay marriage will be legal, but so are many things both good, bad or indifferent. Things that make people happy, mad and sad. I'll continue to believe what I believe is true as others do, and I will continue to love all irrespective of what they do or say.

 

[Moti]

I never get why Paul is revered so much.

He obviously thought he could do more damage to Jesus' message by infiltrating Christianity and controlling the message than just killing off its believers/practitioners.

I like Paul, he knew hot to make an entrance!

 

[Moti]

And we know how much Jesus was invested in sexuality because he raised it - never. Unlike being rich, which he felt very strongly about, but the most pious have no trouble rationalising to suit themselves.

Faith is not the enemy here. But Pharisees, wherever you look, then and now.

Jesus spoke about money because it is was universal to the audience and spoke to the treasure of people's hearts and minds.